This paper will inquire into how personal health choices should be based on our selfinterests.

Our self-interests dictate that being healthy is what we desire because we are generally interested in happiness. I will use ethical egoism to begin my argument, then use Aristotelian ethics, John Stuart Mills utilitarianism ethical theory, and finally with David Humes ideas to augment my claim that humans want to eat healthy based on our personal interests knowing that what is good for us will ultimately make us happy. To provide some background, Im currently doing a senior project that is about experimenting with different diets to determine how it affects my health. Im measuring the effects of congestion based on different diets that I will try. Each diet carries a one month trial period to give myself enough time to adjust to the new diet and then see if there are any health effects. Im also measuring my energy levels to observe whether it has a correlation with congestion and the overall ability to keep me focused and happy. The motivation behind the project is to find ways to relieve my congestion. My hypothesis is that diet affects congestion and if so, I will determine why. Part of my project is not only focusing on what my body needs, also researching into personal health choices from the general population. Therefore, its about what can I do to make myself healthier and understand why people make the food choices they do. This paper will argue that good dietary choices are those that will maximize happiness in the long-term because it results in a good health. Humans act based on the idea of consequences. Consequences are a result of our actions and decisions. When we make the decision to eat something, we are doing something knowing that it will have an effect on our body. Therefore we should approach our personal diets based on a consequentialist approach because we know it will affect our personal health. Opposing ethical such as deontology would be unfit in this situation because it may not

benefit the individual or the society at large. Deontology contends that it is possible for an action or rule of action to be the morally right or obligatory...It may be right or obligatory simply because of some other fact about it or because of its own nature1 This suggests that humans should comply or obligate themselves to a maxim or convention. It also contradicts the natural tendencies of human beings, or in the case of our protecting our health. For example, it would be unfair to say that we should only eat a vegan-based diet because it was recommended better for our health and it protected the welfare of animals. Immanuel Kant, a deontologist, is a firm believer of practical reason over subjective means to determine morality. He believes that we need to scrupulously cleansed of everything empirical if we are to know how much pure reason can accomplish.2 In other words, we should only focus on moral philosophy that uses a priori in the concepts of pure reason to achieve its objective rationality in moral law.3 In order to achieve these objectives, conformity to moral law is needed. In order to conceive these ideas, Kant argues the idea of good will to produce happiness. Happiness takes the form of many of Aristotles ideas such as wisdom, prudence, courage, and temperament. A good will is not good because of what it affect or accomplishesbecause of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alonethat is, good in itself.4

Alameder, 50 Kant, 56 Kant, 57 Kant, 62

He believes that to be good is part of our duty. Duty is done solely just for the sake of dutyor from some purpose of self-interest.5 Our motivation for duty is to act out of reverence for universal laws such as the prescribed categorical imperatives. The first categorical imperative or moral law is [a]ct only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a [sic] universal law.6 The latter is [a]ct so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.7 While these are admirable qualities, it doesnt work for human health. There is no universal imperative for how human health should be prescribed. More specifically, you cannot rationally will someone to eat healthy out of duty. The person must have a genuine reason to eat healthy which is because the individual wants to be healthy, not because its the duty for the individual to eat healthy. Kants duty suggests that a duty must have moral worth which must be independent from inclinations or feelings as it is not practical reason but could be a practical rule. While using reason is should be used to determine good health in the pursuit of happiness, it is not enough to justify making the best choice. It doesnt give humans the natural feeling about what they need. Using solely reason would strip away the ability to feel and arguably take away the feeling of happiness since it has no moral worth according to Kant. Also we need to engage in the consequences of our actions, not from duty but from our self-interests. If we solely relied on our reason to guide to our health, we are neglecting our true happiness. Ethical egoists state that we should produce the happiness of the agent, more than any alternative open to the agent at the time and that the right act is the one that results in the

Kant, 65 Alameder, 60 Alameder, 62

greatest happiness for the individual.8 Therefore, the individual ought to eat something thinking that what is right for them is what will result in the greatest happiness. To clarify, this is not to say that we should eat to our pleasures, as an ethical hedonist would advise us to do. Hedonists make the case that we should act what will give us the greatest pleasure. They contend that seeking personal pleasure will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest good. The egoistic hedonist defines happiness in terms of pleasure, whereas the ethical egoist need not define happiness in terms of pleasure9. The problem with hedonism is that if we were all to eat to our pleasures, we would invariably indulge in ourselves. These short-term pleasures might make us feel good in the short-term but it doesnt give us true happiness. Aristotle claims that the man who indulges in every pleasure and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent10. A closer examination at what pleasure and happiness are needs to be defined. According to Aristotle, pleasure is part of happiness itself[and] is not a process, that is, something that takes time, and has a beginning, a middle, and an end11 However, to clarify he has two distinctions of what pleasures entails. One is an activity, while in the second pleasure is a mental state, consequent upon an activity12 Essentially pleasures can be seen as completing an activity [and] that some are good without qualification, that is, always worth choosing13 As long as the result of the action is good, then true happiness can be achieved.

Almeder, pg. 25 Alameder pg. 34 Aristotle pg. 31 Crisp pg. xxxii Crisp, xxxiii Crisp, xxxiii

10

11

12

13

Happiness, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness14 One can eat for pleasure, but only if the individual is temperate in action and ultimately seeking happiness. John Stuart Mills utilitarianism ethics argues that pleasure doesnt achieve happiness by stating that a beasts pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness. However, human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. Rather Mill believes there are lower pleasures and higher pleasures. Utilitarians assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than those of mere sensationin general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasuresthe fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than othersin estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone15 How do we achieve happiness? As previously stated, consequential happiness is the pursuit of the final end and for the sake of happiness, not for others. To achieve happiness, is to be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance.16 Aristotle argues that we should be virtuous,

14

Aristotle, 12 Mill, 8 Aristotle 18

15

16

stating the virtuous life both helps human beings achieve true happiness and is the realization of true happiness. Virtues make you good, and they help you have a good life.17 Happiness is something that takes over the course of a lifetime. Life is a journey. Individuals should live with a steadfast purpose to flourish or find eudaimonia to have the full realization of the good life.18 In order to realize the good life, we must want to aspire towards something good. This is done by the activity of the soul and by practicing good virtues. In the act of eating, we should realize that indulging in gluttony wont do us good because it is not helping us aspiring toward happiness. In one sense, we should practice one of Aristotelians moral virtues of temperance or self-restraint. For example, if someone were diabetic, it would not do good to heedlessly eat massive amounts of sugar cookies because it could lead to health problems such as heart attack, stroke, nerve damage, kidney damage, and blindness. These health hazards can cause unhappiness not because of the perceived negative consequences but because we are not practicing good virtues. Practicing good virtues is more than just a character trait: it is also an essential part of human happiness and flourishing.19 In this previous example, lets argue that the individual was born with optimal health but the physical integrity of the person eroded over time because they didnt practice good health. As a result, diabetes was a consequence caused by years of neglectful poor dieting. Even though these virtues provide good values when it comes to good practice, it lacks usefulness. How do you apply a theory that asks us to strive to moral exemplarspeople who embody the virtues and inspire others to follow in their steps...The primary focus is not on abstract reason but on

17

Vaughn 134 Vaughn 134 Vaughn 136

18

19

ideal types of persons or on actual ideal persons20 While we should practice good values to promote good health, its not enough to say our actions should be guided by our virtues and self-interests in the pursuit of happiness. How do we know what is good for us and how do we get there? The utilitarianism approach, also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle has ideas to promote happiness. To achieve true happiness, we need to make choices that will make us better. In addition, you have to treat others as you would yourself. Since it is in our interest to treat others as you would yourself, it is important to treat others well so you can treat yourself well. For the utilitarian proposes the standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether.21 For Mill, to make good choices is to do things that will make us happy. This touches back to the subject of pleasures. Happiness can be measured by an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality[and] the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality.22 Our moral actions are measured by the utilitarian standardUtilitarians who have cultivated their moral feelings, but not their sympathies nor their artistic perceptions23 Mill argues that in finding a standard for moral values, he wont promote an absolute idea but one that inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right, and incline them to do it when found, rather than to tell them, except in

20

Vaughn 136 Mill, 11 Mill, 12 Mill, 20

21

22

23

a very general way.24 He goes to argue that while Christian values might influence their moral values, he does believe that we should seek our own values based the usefulness or hurtfulness of any given action, by as good a right as others can use it for the indication of a transcendental law, having no connection with usefulness or with happiness25 He argues that the reason why we shouldnt let religion guide general happiness is because mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent. 26 In addition, the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on the general happiness, I admit, or rather, earnestly maintain. The corollaries from the principle of utility, like the precepts of every practical art, admit of indefinite improvement, and, in a progressive state of the human mind, their improvement is perpetually going on.27 Essentially, Mill argues that morality is always evolving. It should never stagnant. Just as life is always changing, morals and values are self-changing. If we were to stick to a set a rule that is absolute, then certain values and rules would become obsolete. Utilitarianism argues that the ultimate standard shouldnt be imposed by absolutists, because if human affairs continue to improve, [then] in the end reduced within narrow limitsEven that most intractable of enemies, disease, may be indefinitely reduced in dimensions by good physical and moral education.28 That is not to say certain ethical virtues should not be upheld because they do serve the interest of individuals as well as everyone

24

Mill, 21 Mill, 21 Mill, 23 Mill, 25 Mill, 14

25

26

27

28

else but also because it serves to promote happiness.